Thank you for providing a really good example of this by doing exactly that for the entirety of this thread. You are only looking at sources that agree with you and are not examining evidence that does not.

I was taught uniform geology theory and evolution in school. To my shame, I never questioned either until stumbling onto a discussion of why currently accepted geological theory cannot fit actual geology. Example: The Tapeats sandstone layer covers a major portion of North America, under several names. The same is true for the St Peter sandstone layer. For several decades I've had a hobby of locating facts that weigh against commonly accepted frameworks.

To see a current example of how this can mess things up, read "The Road to Ruin," by James Rickards, who contends that it is about seventy years since there was a basic improvement in economic theory. The currently accepted economic models make little or no use of complexity analysis, behavioral psychology, or causal inference, all of which have been developed since.

And yet, you were earlier telling us how great Austrian economics was.

As has been pointed out, Austrian economics has failed to use later developments such as chaos theory, complexity theory, behavioral psychology, or causal inference. This failure seems to be common to all currently accepted economic theories We are overdue for reworking or replacing of known economic theories.

There is some recent work that takes these into account, but it is not very well known yet

Snowflake warning: If you prefer "safe spaces" skip the rest of this.

Fun thing you may not be aware of: Anyone who uses "snowflake warning" is very likely to be a very special snowflake themselves.

This is why I concentrate on the implications of facts and experiments. My assumption is that something is wrong, the fun is in locating the evidence demarcating this

Given this background and many later events, it will take solid evidence to move me away from Biblical creation as my interpretive framework. Only the consideration that if such evidence exists it is my duty to follow it make it possible.

There is very solid evidence that biblical creation is completely wrong in every detail, and yet you are here having this debate because you choose to disregard the evidence because it disagrees with you.

So, from here on out: If you ever post again about how irrational other people are when they disregard things that they don't agree with, I'll be reminding you of this very post where you explicitly told us that that's what you're doing.

Go ahead. Name those details, please! Just use facts, not frameworks for this.

I disregarded evidence against the geological, cosmological, and evolutionary frameworks taught to me for decades. It is only by an accidental reading about the failures of uniformity in geological theory that I started looking at other possibilities.

You state that intelligent design theory, whether biblical or deist is wrong. You point to no explanation for interdependent complexity. It is a long time since reading Darwin's "Origin of Species," but FWIR he said that future discoveries would eliminate the weak points he mentioned of large gaps between fossil phyla and complicated organs. These problems still exist. Example: Vertebrate legs have fibula, but these have various sources in the embryo in different kinds of vertebrates. This is also true for many other organs. If common descent is true, the prediction would be common sources for any given organ. This is a failed prediction. Convergent evolution is used to cover this, but this emperor has no clothes in the form of evidence. It is only a bandage over this gaping wound.

The problem with any framework is the strong tendency to assume it must be correct and to produce ad hoc coverings for difficult facts. Look at how long Ptolemaic astronomy was accepted; or the time gaps between developments in various disciplines. Hippocrates, Galen, and Pasteur in medicine; or Thales, Gilbert, Franklin, Volta, Faraday, and Maxwell in electricity are two examples.

Worth reading:"The Signal and the Noise." by Nate Silver.Humans are very good at constructing patterns - which of us hasn't looked at clouds and seen castles or other figures? If we don't work at it, we make patterns from the noise, not the signal. Silver's discussion of success and failure of prediction methods makes a very good case for using probability instead of certainty to decide what is really knowledge. It is interesting to see why weather prediction has had major improvements (although doubling the accuracy of super computer prediction requires a sixteen fold increase in computing. Interestingly, human tweaking of computer results has given roughly 25% improvement over a large range of computer capabilities.) OTOH, we still don't have a usable prediction for earthquakes, although we have learned a few things.

Successful prediction is the major test of frameworks. We keep finding predictive failures. These should let us improve or replace the frameworks. Soft tissues in dinosaur fossils was an accidental discovery by an evolutionist. Given that experimental work provides a maximum lifetime between 450,000 and 700,000 years for collagen, the accepted age of such fossils needs reworking. The common pattern of aquatic fossils in close spacing with land fossils is not predicted by uniform geology, more reworking is needed. A universe that does not have equal amounts of matter and antimatter requires a second look at big bang theory, reworking is needed. The existence of mature looking galaxies as we look further into the past with better telescopes is not predicted by time and chance cosmologies.

We also find predictive successes. Large amounts of information which interweave to produce interdependent and complicated results is a prediction of ID theory. This is found in the details of fields as diverse as sub nuclear particles, embryology, and genomics.

The two types of reworking are: Trying to rescue the accepted framework; or seeking an alternate framework.

DDHv wrote:You state that intelligent design theory, whether biblical or deist is wrong.

Intelligent Design is an invalid theory because it postulates that its driving engine is an unknowable and unmeasurable entity. Everything else, the various logical fallacies and outright scams its proponents commit, is just icing on the cake.

You point to no explanation for interdependent complexity. It is a long time since reading Darwin's "Origin of Species," but FWIR he said that future discoveries would eliminate the weak points he mentioned of large gaps between fossil phyla and complicated organs. These problems still exist. Example: Vertebrate legs have fibula, but these have various sources in the embryo in different kinds of vertebrates. This is also true for many other organs. If common descent is true, the prediction would be common sources for any given organ. This is a failed prediction. Convergent evolution is used to cover this, but this emperor has no clothes in the form of evidence. It is only a bandage over this gaping wound.

Counterpoint: You have failed to point out any observational or experimental evidence that requires ID assumptions to explain. You've doubted that evolution is sufficient to explain certain things, but you have not been able to produce anything that would categorically rule out evolution either.

The problem with any framework is the strong tendency to assume it must be correct and to produce ad hoc coverings for difficult facts. Look at how long Ptolemaic astronomy was accepted; or the time gaps between developments in various disciplines. Hippocrates, Galen, and Pasteur in medicine; or Thales, Gilbert, Franklin, Volta, Faraday, and Maxwell in electricity are two examples.

And what facts are you ignoring? You've said yourself that you are discarding evidence and results that disagree with your preconceptions; What possible evidence could I, or anyone, produce that would get you away from the insanity that is ID?

Worth reading:"The Signal and the Noise." by Nate Silver.Humans are very good at constructing patterns - which of us hasn't looked at clouds and seen castles or other figures? If we don't work at it, we make patterns from the noise, not the signal. Silver's discussion of success and failure of prediction methods makes a very good case for using probability instead of certainty to decide what is really knowledge. It is interesting to see why weather prediction has had major improvements (although doubling the accuracy of super computer prediction requires a sixteen fold increase in computing. Interestingly, human tweaking of computer results has given roughly 25% improvement over a large range of computer capabilities.) OTOH, we still don't have a usable prediction for earthquakes, although we have learned a few things.

It's always funny when you, an intelligent design advocate and strong believer in the christian god, talk about pareidolia.

It's like there's a hint of self-awareness there, trying to get out.

Successful prediction is the major test of frameworks. We keep finding predictive failures. These should let us improve or replace the frameworks. Soft tissues in dinosaur fossils was an accidental discovery by an evolutionist. Given that experimental work provides a maximum lifetime between 450,000 and 700,000 years for collagen, the accepted age of such fossils needs reworking. The common pattern of aquatic fossils in close spacing with land fossils is not predicted by uniform geology, more reworking is needed. A universe that does not have equal amounts of matter and antimatter requires a second look at big bang theory, reworking is needed. The existence of mature looking galaxies as we look further into the past with better telescopes is not predicted by time and chance cosmologies.

We also find predictive successes. Large amounts of information which interweave to produce interdependent and complicated results is a prediction of ID theory. This is found in the details of fields as diverse as sub nuclear particles, embryology, and genomics.

ID has so far failed to provide an observation or experiment that is impossible under accepted, mainstream theories. You are continuously trying to convince us that it did, but anyone who knows anything about ID should be aware that proving it would require a proof of the existence of god. Not just the kind of personal proof you so strongly believe in, but an actual, repeatable, documented proof. So far, we haven't had that kind of breakthrough.

Until that happens (and it won't), ID will remain what it is: An intellectual dead end, propped up by churches, scam artists and useful idiots.

The E wrote:ID has so far failed to provide an observation or experiment that is impossible under accepted, mainstream theories. You are continuously trying to convince us that it did, but anyone who knows anything about ID should be aware that proving it would require a proof of the existence of god. Not just the kind of personal proof you so strongly believe in, but an actual, repeatable, documented proof. So far, we haven't had that kind of breakthrough.

Until that happens (and it won't), ID will remain what it is: An intellectual dead end, propped up by churches, scam artists and useful idiots.

It is not possible to prove the existence of a god by means of logic & scientific methods. A god, by definition, is supernatural (above nature) and not bound by natural laws. Those who claim to prove it through "Intelligent Design" or "Creation Science" try to reason backward from effects to cause, which can be helpful in science, but they err in assigning anything they can't explain to "god" and they outright lie when they cherry-pick data and ignore whatever doesn't support their conclusion. They are not seeking knowledge, just validation.

The E wrote:ID has so far failed to provide an observation or experiment that is impossible under accepted, mainstream theories. You are continuously trying to convince us that it did, but anyone who knows anything about ID should be aware that proving it would require a proof of the existence of god. Not just the kind of personal proof you so strongly believe in, but an actual, repeatable, documented proof. So far, we haven't had that kind of breakthrough.

Until that happens (and it won't), ID will remain what it is: An intellectual dead end, propped up by churches, scam artists and useful idiots.

It is not possible to prove the existence of a god by means of logic & scientific methods. A god, by definition, is supernatural (above nature) and not bound by natural laws. Those who claim to prove it through "Intelligent Design" or "Creation Science" try to reason backward from effects to cause, which can be helpful in science, but they err in assigning anything they can't explain to "god" and they outright lie when they cherry-pick data and ignore whatever doesn't support their conclusion. They are not seeking knowledge, just validation.

It is not possible to prove the existence of an objective universe by means of logic or scientific methods. These assume there is an objective universe.

I know of several SF stories that have as a basic assumption the idea that what we perceive is not the real universe. No civilization that accepts this has produced science.

Ever since Pascal, the accepted test for knowledge is to see if the idea is probable.

John D. Sutherland, “Studies on the origin of life — the end of the beginning,” Nature Reviews Chemistry, Vol. 1:12 (2017) assumes a naturalistic origin for life, and discusses work done on this basis. He puts forth work that includes multiple accurate intelligent intervention, but assumes that this is evidence for origin of life without such intervention.

Aside from the fact that Sutherland’s model refutes the ever-popular “hydrothermal vent” hypothesis for the origin of life, don’t miss the last sentence where he commits the “burden of proof” logical fallacy. This basically says that if you view his scenario as “unacceptable” then you can’t dismiss it unless you can produce a scenario that’s better or “equally productive.” This is obviously fallacious: the merits of his hypothesis do not fall or rise on the ability of a given critic to provide a more “productive” explanation. After all, what if the entire project — the attempt to produce biomolecules in the absence of living organisms under natural earthlike conditions — is impossible? If that’s the case, then all explanations of prebiotic synthesis are ultimately doomed to fail, including our “best” attempts. Perhaps the fact that he ends on this note hints that he knows his case isn’t really all that strong.

Dismissal of ID work on the basis of the "burden of proof" logical fallacy ignores the use of probability assessment of evidence against or for a given idea. Many people are like those who dismiss the idea that the Bible can have accurate prophecies by ignoring the existence of Israel, without even being able to name one other people who have been exiles from their homeland for many generations but have returned to it.

In any case, the scenario of prebiotic synthesis he outlines once again suffers from the problems that his earlier work did. As Robert Shapiro put it, it is “highly unlikely” that “blind, undirected, inanimate chemistry would go out of its way in multiple steps and use of reagents in just the right sequence to form RNA.”

The assumption, which I think is fallacious, is that complex functional (not just Shannon) information has at some time arisen from chance and time.

Whether the foundation of all existence more resembles chaos, or known intelligence is perhaps the key question.

Thank you for providing a really good example of this by doing exactly that for the entirety of this thread. You are only looking at sources that agree with you and are not examining evidence that does not.

I was taught uniform geology theory and evolution in school. To my shame, I never questioned either until stumbling onto a discussion of why currently accepted geological theory cannot fit actual geology. Example: The Tapeats sandstone layer covers a major portion of North America, under several names. The same is true for the St Peter sandstone layer. For several decades I've had a hobby of locating facts that weigh against commonly accepted frameworks.

Please sue your school for a refund of your tuition for your geology and biology courses. This thread should be sufficient evidence in any small claims court that you were ripped off.

DDHv wrote:It is not possible to prove the existence of an objective universe by means of logic or scientific methods. These assume there is an objective universe.

An assumption that has worked out so far.

I know of several SF stories that have as a basic assumption the idea that what we perceive is not the real universe. No civilization that accepts this has produced science.

You are aware, I hope, that those stories were made up.

Ever since Pascal, the accepted test for knowledge is to see if the idea is probable.

Being "probable" is a very easy bar to clear.

John D. Sutherland, “Studies on the origin of life — the end of the beginning,” Nature Reviews Chemistry, Vol. 1:12 (2017) assumes a naturalistic origin for life, and discusses work done on this basis. He puts forth work that includes multiple accurate intelligent intervention, but assumes that this is evidence for origin of life without such intervention.

Aside from the fact that Sutherland’s model refutes the ever-popular “hydrothermal vent” hypothesis for the origin of life, don’t miss the last sentence where he commits the “burden of proof” logical fallacy. This basically says that if you view his scenario as “unacceptable” then you can’t dismiss it unless you can produce a scenario that’s better or “equally productive.” This is obviously fallacious: the merits of his hypothesis do not fall or rise on the ability of a given critic to provide a more “productive” explanation. After all, what if the entire project — the attempt to produce biomolecules in the absence of living organisms under natural earthlike conditions — is impossible? If that’s the case, then all explanations of prebiotic synthesis are ultimately doomed to fail, including our “best” attempts. Perhaps the fact that he ends on this note hints that he knows his case isn’t really all that strong.

Here's the thing though: Even if abiogenesis turns out to be not reproducible in a lab, it doesn't mean that your god is the origin of life, or that "intelligent design" was involved in it. ID offers one alternative explanation (even if it is completely unscientific and not supported by what we do know), but it's not the only one.

Dismissal of ID work on the basis of the "burden of proof" logical fallacy ignores the use of probability assessment of evidence against or for a given idea. Many people are like those who dismiss the idea that the Bible can have accurate prophecies by ignoring the existence of Israel, without even being able to name one other people who have been exiles from their homeland for many generations but have returned to it.

The bible mixes apocryphal history, moral fables and outright fiction liberally throughout. That you're able to prove that some things in it actually happened through outside sources doesn't mean that the rest of it is any more true.

The assumption, which I think is fallacious, is that complex functional (not just Shannon) information has at some time arisen from chance and time.

Whether the foundation of all existence more resembles chaos, or known intelligence is perhaps the key question.

And you're still hung up on not understanding that "improbable" and "impossible" are two different words with different meanings.

Oh, and one other thing: If it turned out that Abiogenesis is in fact impossible to prove, I would have no problem accepting a different theory.But what if it turns out Abiogenesis truly is reproducible: Would you change your tune? Or would you continue to insist that it's all way to improbable to ever have happened in the real world?